In March, conservative uber-strategist Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform launched the Media Freedom Project. This new group is the latest entry in a three-decade-long contest between the progressives who want to protect and extend First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and those on the right who view unfettered expression as a danger to the established corporate order.

The Media Freedom Project’s first press release, “The Return of the Re-Regulators,” warned that Democratic efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine “could mean the end of popular talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and G. Gordon Liddy.” (See “Fairness Now,”)

The Media Freedom Project’s priorities show why the Fairness Doctrine, which compelled FCC-licensed broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance,” is sorely needed in what commentators like the Media Channel’s Danny Schecter are calling a “post-journalism era.”

Decades-old journalistic standards of “objectivity”-—and even its less-learned cousin, “balance”—are on the ropes. Paid political operatives posing as bloggers are taking down journalists like Dan Rather, while progressive “citizen bloggers” expose faux-reporters like Jeff Gannon. (See “The Blogosphere: Insiders vs. Outsiders,”) The federal government is filling the airwaves with “video news releases” and hired pundits like Armstrong Williams. (See “The GOP’s Quest for Color,”) Meanwhile, a study by the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey revealed that young people who regularly watch “The Daily Show” are “more likely to answer questions about politics correctly than those who don’t.”

With this issue of In These Times, we explore the contours of the current media landscape, map the contested territory, and chart the dissimilar conservative and progressive media strategies.

How the conservatives came to dominate

The story of how conservatives have reshaped the media to their own ends has generated plenty of ink. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) founder Jeff Cohen, Salon’s Joe Conason and The Nation’s Eric Alterman have all written convincingly and at length for both mainstream and progressive outlets about how right-wing media has come to dominate the national debate.

Reformed conservative David Brock explains in The Republican Noise Machine that tarring the mainstream media as “liberal” was the first step in the conservative campaign to dominate the airwaves. Founded in 1969 by anti-communist economist Reed Irvine, Accuracy in Media (AIM) was set up to support President Richard Nixon’s Vietnam policies by mobilizing opposition to “liberal” bias in the news. “Irvine was practicing a form of jujitsu” writes Brock. “Seeing itself as a public trust, the media was responsive to calls for accountability and was highly susceptible to criticism.” Dan Rather was one of the group’s targets during that era and has remained so to this day. AIM mocked his patriotic final broadcast as an “extreme makeover.”

Inculcating fear of conservative disapproval in the mainstream press—and a consequent alienation of advertisers and viewers—has been the lynchpin of the conservative strategy. It set the stage for the creation of a conservative media machine. In an effort to shift public discourse to the right, conservative foundations, right-wing donors and corporations worked together to create multiple organizations that in turn generated think tanks, issue-based nonprofits and conservative media outlets—all with their own highly paid and well-coached “experts.” Then, the right, ever more loudly denouncing the biased “liberal media elite,” inserted these newly minted experts into a mainstream media that was now on the defensive and vulnerable to manipulation.

The goals of the conservative media strategy are multiple and overlapping: to protect business interests, elevate a free-market philosophy, advance a frame of “family values,” promote U.S. political dominance, and counter popular movements for civil, women’s, consumers’ and gay rights that were gaining prominence in the late ’60s and early ‘70s. The traditional Republican right found ready allies in leaders of the Christian right like Pat Robertson, who in 1960 founded the Christian Broadcasting Network, which by the late ‘70s reached millions of viewers and regularly featured prominent conservatives.

During the ’70s and ’80s, conservative and corporate funders followed an explicit plan to establish and expand right-wing think tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Instititue. The think tanks served as incubators for right-wing ideas and by the ’90s were poised to capitalize on emerging—and unregulated—media sectors such as cable television, talk radio and Internet commentary. They were complimented by a host of corporate-funded “astroturf” groups created by the public relations industry to counteract genuine grassroots organizations fighting for social, environmental and economic justice.

Like the Bush presidencies, the rise of a conservative media machine has been an elaborate, multi-generational affair. AIM’s late-’60s media criticisms were complemented by the critiques of Irving Kristol, the influential co-editor of the conservative journal The Public Interest. Irving is the father of William Kristol, who founded the prominent conservative magazine The Weekly Standard in 1995 with funding from Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch. Small political magazines like these, despite their low circulation, have been standard-bearers for once-radical ideas that have now moved into the mainstream. After several years of editing The Weekly Standard, the younger Kristol used grants from the Bradley Foundation to establish the Project for the New American Century, a nonprofit organization of neoconservative activists who hatched the rationale for President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq.

While Murdoch’s support for The Weekly Standard has been instrumental in the recent history of conservative media, it’s his Fox News that represents the pinnacle of right-wing media strategizing—a 24-hour station, available to all cable subscribers that militantly masquerades as a “fair and balanced” member of the mainstream media. According to an analysis by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, in 2004 Fox News anchors and reporters included their own opinions in 73 percent of the stories they reported on Iraq. In contrast, only 2 percent of CNN reporters did so. The report notes, “Those findings seem to challenge Fox’s promotional marketing, particularly its slogan, ‘We Report. You Decide.’ ”

The 24-hour news cycle has also spawned its own virulent brand of media manipulation: repetitive, coordinated and incessant. For example, every Wednesday morning, the Media Freedom Project’s Norquist convenes an invitation-only meeting of high-level GOP strategists, Congressional and White House staffers, and corporate leaders to formulate the “talking points” for the week. In a January 2004 profile of Norquist in Mother Jones, Michael Scherer wrote:

There is no time for canned political rhetoric. The focus is on winning. Here, strategy is honed. Talking points are refined. Discipline is imposed. … In building his coalition, Norquist has made a conscious strategic decision to go with a big-tent approach. At his weekly meetings, social issues like gay rights and abortion, which can divide the electoral base of conservatives and libertarians, are played down in favor of issues like tax cuts, tort reform, and the rollback of federal regulations and rules. These are the broad-appeal political winners on which Norquist is pinning the movement’s future. And they’re a strong lure for the corporate community, some of whose members—Philip Morris, Pfizer and Time Warner, for instance—also happen to supply funding for Americans for Tax Reform.

Where does this leave progressives? Stuck, as they are, with defending old-fashioned values, such as truth, fair play, factual accuracy, civility, the open exchange of ideas, the power of reasoned debate, and the honor of upholding the public trust.

Progressives face a predicament

In contrast to conservatives, progressives have done little to internally define “who we are,” “what values we stand for” and “what we want.” Lacking an agreed upon framework, progressives spread singular messages, resulting in a cacophony rather than an outline of a progressive agenda.

In early December, William Safire quoted James Carville’s take on the matter in the New York Times Magazine: “They produce a narrative, we produce a litany. … They say, ‘I’m going to protect you from the terrorists in Tehran and the homos in Hollywood.’ We say, ‘We’re for clean air, better schools, more health care.’ And so there’s a Republican narrative, a story, and there’s a Democratic litany.”

The challenge for progressives is to create narratives that express progressive values. Progressives must develop the strength of speaking with a unified voice, one that communicates our fundamental beliefs while still drawing on the diversity of perspectives integral to progressive principles.

Currently, the progressive media network is missing both a coordinated messaging system and a self-sustaining network that can funnel ideas from the grassroots, progressive think tanks and the independent media into the mainstream media where national conversations take place.

In a 2002 report on progressive think tanks for the Open Society Institute, David Dyssegaard Kallick wrote, “What is lacking is not sharp individuals with creative ideas. … What is missing is an institutional infrastructure that brings these people together with each other and with people who understand practical politics, media and organizing.”

For decades, liberal foundations and individual donors have failed to recognize the need for building long-term capacity in progressive media and affiliated organizations, and thereby create a progressive “echo chamber” that can begin to counter the right’s media machine. Progressive foundations, with their roots in the reform movements of the early 20th century, have focused on funding social work and single-issue groups.

As a result, the progressive media network has evolved in an ad hoc, organic basis in contrast to the conservative media machine’s coordinated infrastructure. Progressive media is built by unconnected individuals who have in common the belief that the progressive agenda needs a voice of its own. When liberal foundations do provide media grants, they shy away from overtly political media projects, and instead direct millions toward federally supported public media, such as the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and National Public Radio, or to individual documentary film projects that might be shown on PBS.

In their 2003 report “Funding for Social Change,” Nan Rubin and Sharon Maeda write, “Progressive funders do not provide much support for infrastructures, distribution networks and membership organizations that provide the political and technical backbone for ‘alternative media’ to reach audiences.”

They also note in a 2005 update to their survey that while foundations recognize the dangers of corporate media consolidation and the importance of organizing around media, they have little understanding of how to strategically fund media development or how to document its impact. “Few funders see media as an organizing tool or as a way to popularize messages or conduct public education campaigns,” Rubin and Maeda write, “Primarily, though, they address the concept of the message and not the media themselves.”

A media network emerges

Recently, new think tanks, such as the Center for American Progress and the Rockridge Institute, have started disseminating progressive messages, providing talking points and conducting fact-finding missions to discredit the misinformation coming from conservative think tanks and pundits. On-line mobilizing groups such as MoveOn and progressive 527s like Americans Coming Together have reenergized a progressive voter base that is politically engaged and active.

Yet these Washington-centric efforts are still not connected to grassroots, single-issue organizations. Too often, they lack the involvement of women, people of color and those who are not upper-middle class.

Looking at “The Emerging Progressive Media Network,” it’s important to note the disconnect between the vast, well-funded “Issue-Based Nonprofits,” the “Emerging Message Machine” of the think tanks, politicians and message creators and the struggling “Progressive Media.” To participate in the mainstream dialogue, each of these spheres needs to be connected to each other and appropriately funded.

So what are the next steps?

Progressive media makers should reach out to and educate foundations and individual donors about the strategic importance of providing significant funding to independent media outlets in order to build a sustainable progressive infrastructure that can effectively shape public dialogue.

Progressive strategists should develop narrative frames and talking points that can successfully carry their values into the mainstream media. This will require an unprecedented level of cooperation among the disparate collection of independently run and funded organizations that currently make up the progressive movement.

Progressive organizers should continue discussing ways to strengthen their media network without mimicking the top-down, undemocratic methods of the right’s media machine. Supporting current infrastructure groups—and building new ones—is key to improving coordination between the different progressive media sectors. This will require financial resources and research.

Progressives of all stripes should look for inspiration from innovative models of participatory information-sharing, such as the collective idea development pioneered in open-source networks, or the community-driven organizing of MoveOn’s house parties and Democracy For America’s meet-ups. New technological opportunities offered by advances like community Wi Fi also open up fresh media horizons.

These recommendations are only a start. Like the progressive media network itself, this analysis will continue to evolve. The prospects are exciting, but both financial support and dialogue are needed to reach the next level.

Jessica Clark is a former executive editor of In These Times and director of the Future of Public Media Project at American University's Center for Social Media. Tracy Van Slyke, a former publisher of In These Times, is project director of The Media Consortium and co-editor of buildtheecho.net. Clark and Van Slyke are the co-authors of Beyond the Echo Chamber: Reshaping Politics Through Networked Progressive Media (2010, New Press)

Apparently the Jury is still outas to wether Saddam was better than what will follow. THe Yowza Freaks are so convient in their notice.
Saddam was awful except he was our best buddy against Iran when we gave him the WMD technology, and even after sending an exocet missle into one of our ships, killing 16 people, and injuring dozens more, Reagan, Rummy and Bush1, continued to play footsie with him.
But then if we had't invaded half-cocked Al-Quaida and Zarkawi (sp?) would be busy blowing up Saddam's people instead of attacking Americans.
Today there are many Saddams around the world, Sudan, the various 'Stans, all are our Buddies as long as the Oil and Opium keep flowing moneey into Republican pockets.
You can tell all the Media that is not at least off in right field. They reported Terry Sheiboas 15 years dead but still twitching, and thhat she finnaly got a chance to rest in peace. Or the story of all the people who's lives could have been saved with her donated organs before 15 years of not facing the reality made them poor value. Or they might have told how the little child was killed by Bush's law, that allowed hospitals tokill people with actual working brains but not enough money to pay the bills. The money spent just on Propagandain the Shaivo case would allow at least ten such people to die in peace ror even recover from their medical problems.
An Acxtual honest Media would be hot on the trail of the Gannon/Guckert Affair, not about which senior WH folk he was giving blowjobs to, but how a male hooker managed to get top secret information and pass it to others.Posted by BD on 2005-04-29 11:25:36

So if the so-called "progressives" - i.e., the people who would have Saddam in power - think the "mainstream" media is so conservative ..... does that mean they're happy Dan Blather got sacked and they think the complete imbecile Andrew Heyward ought to go too???
Or is it maybe that they think Bob "Bonehead" Schieffer is even more "conservative". ;-)Posted by Joe Yowsa on 2005-04-28 22:08:47

You know any clear minded progessive should see the real problem with the FRight wing social conservatives. It has to do with their strict rules re: sex.
It's apparent that in this one regard they take their prohibitions against sex in all its natural forms to heart.
As a result these FRight wing SoCons are an extremely frustrated group. They are horny as hell, and don't know what to do about it either.
Since they oppose any sort of sex education to boot. So they can't even relieve their own stress.
Instead they focus all their energies on forcing the rest of us who are NOT FRight Wing SoCons to conform to their ideas of "sex is evil."
They seek to save our souls by bringing us into their world.....
........where pregnancy is God's punishment for lose women who dare to have sex outside of marriage (hey even in marriage.)
........where conversely a man proves his virility by having sex with whores and sluts (designated so because they refuse to conform to the FRight Wing SoCon social expectations)
Combine the two and it's easy to see where the nutty, out of nowhere connected to nothing nonsense the FRight wing SoCons write comes from.
Clearly and obviously the cure for the "FRight wing SoCon" affliction is a lot of good sex . Something that they clearly have never had.
The motto of all Progressives should be F*CK THE FRIGHT WING NEOCONS, because they desperately need a good roll in the hay. ;)Posted by John Morales on 2005-04-27 15:05:57

Hi Jessica,
You state:
"... conservative uber-strategist Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform...
This makes him sound as if he is a spokesperson for the "average Joe" taxpayer. And that he is this really terrific (uber-strategist) that we should really believe when he talks because of that. To top it off, you call him a conservative!
This is exactly what he would like us to believe.
You sound like the MSM as they routinely ignore what the person's real MO is. Neocon spokespeson. I think you and the MSM do the public a disservice by telling only a part of his story. Sort of like introducing "The Bird Man of Alcatraz" as a "pigeon expert" while ignoring the fact that he is also a criminal.Posted by Merlin on 2005-04-27 14:37:22

Hi Margaret,
You have to admit, he is somewhat perceptive. He picked a name that is truly representative of himself.
:-)Posted by Merlin on 2005-04-27 14:10:12

Katherine,
Isn't it amazing how ignorant people have to lash out when they don't understand what they're talking about! America was built to get away from the ultra-Conservative religious oppressors in England. The Puritans were the liberals who didn't agree with the perverted doctrine of the (then) Church of England.
Dummy really knows his stuff LOL!Posted by Margaret on 2005-04-27 13:25:52

You liberal just don't get it and you are trying to destroy America. America was built to get away from morons like the liberals on the left.
Move to cuba you scum.Posted by Anti-DUmmy on 2005-04-27 12:24:04

Hey Joe:
Regarding morals/values of Clinton vs. Bush...
(or Bush vs. any other president I can generally think of)
Bush runs his administration on a "payback philosophy." Who has helped him financially achieve the goals he aspires to financially for those in his circle (and his own future when he is finally out of our White House) get his support. Unfortunately, that is governing for vultures --which does not provide sound governance for the country. He then toutst their achievements as achievments for all. Regan used to do that -- but not anywhere imaginable to what Bush has. i.e. - he took/takes the total gross and divide it btwn all and come up with a "booming economy." BUT: the fact remains those at the top 2 percent own everything -- and the bottom 60 percent are faultering.
Clinton's impeachment was due to his testimony in Paula Jones -- which by the way, the media failed to report to any audible extent, that her case was found to be a lie in the end. So Clinton being tricked into that testimony should have been (and would have been in civil suit) moot. As Jones went in with unclean hands.
The fact remains, that if Bush would be a better human if given the chance to have an affair with someone: I would be the first to pay for the "girl" to pop out of the cake for him.
It would be a much better investment than all the ridiculous "tax cuts" he has lined his faithfuls' pockets with at the expense of 98 percent of the population.
AGAIN: UNLESS YOU ARE AT THE TOP PERCENTAGE OF THE BUSH INCOME BRACKET, THE TAX INCREASES THAT EVERY STATE/LOCAL/SALES/PROPERTY/BRIDGE TOLL/HEALTH CARE INCREASE/ETC.(therie are about a gazillion more "hidden" increases to make up for the federal deficit/spending cuts) levied upon all of us since Bush was appointed, have added to an overall increase in the monies Americans are paying to make up for the money he has taken away from the people to give as subsidies to large corporations; i.e. - his supporters. It isn't that difficult to understand.Posted by Katherine Hovey on 2005-04-27 08:09:01

But that perjury was the result of questioning his sexual picadilloes. It had NOTHING to do with the governance of this country and was a POLITICAL PAYBACK for Nixon. Or haven't you read the quote from Henry Hyde this week? If you can't see the difference between lying to the American public about Sadaam (now 50% of Americans believe Bush Co. lied, not just gave poor intelligence, per the Gallup Poll last week) and led hundreds of thousands of innocent people to their deaths, not to mention our own 1,600 that were lied to and misused, then you are a truly delusional individual.
Hope I helped to clear up your confusion, Joe. You seem to have plenty of it.Posted by Margaret on 2005-04-26 08:28:40

For the record. Clintoon was not impeached for a "blow job". He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. The record will show this for those who remain confused.Posted by Joe Yowsa on 2005-04-26 02:48:11

Joe Yowsa,
No, Clinton's greatest achievement was paying down Ronnie Reagan' collosal deficit and bringing us into to black again in a major way. Not to mention the various accords between Israel and Palestine, the opening up of millions of acres of new Federal Reserve wilderness, just to mention a few.
All Bush has done is bring this country down, suck it into, according to Greenspan and Wall Street, pending economic collapse, and murdered tens of thousands of innocent people to gain oil control. How funny Clinton was impeached for a blow job that had no effect on the governance of our country, and Bush lies and misinforms to the cost of 1,600 Americans lives for starters, and the neofascist zombie brigade Republicans lap it up. Doesn't say much for the intelligence of the American people, does it?Posted by Margaret on 2005-04-24 16:19:49

I don't know what's wrong with people today.
This BushCo administration what's to shove censorship down our throats when they try to choke the life out of progressive news media. If we don't watch out we will not have any rights left and what we'll be left with is a dictatorship form of government. Without radio shows where people are allowed to put their two cents worth in, we would not know how America feels about anything would we? I don't feel that TV news justifies what is really happening in our world today and we have to relie on progressive radio news media.Posted by Pat Grzybowski on 2005-04-24 03:02:09

Clintoon's major accomplishment was getting more GOP legislators elected than Honest Abe, Teddy Roosevelt and the great Ronald Reagan combined. After that it was showmanship and Monica and sundry gropings and illegal campaign gifts.Posted by Joe Yowsa on 2005-04-23 22:13:38

Hi John:
I agree. I did not assume you associated a superior mind to this group... I argued that what you were proposing was a defeatest attitude: since conservatives are the seemingly winners at the moment, progressives/liberals must behave in sort.
I think my key point (also) got lost in the middle: if someone is spending all of their energy attempting to control others, they have no control of themselves... eventually, they are out of control... they self-explode.
Hate to seem like a vulture, but it's a matter of time.
I agree with you in the sense that I always tell others: forget about your petty little grievances/causes... find the target to taking the whole thing down and speak with one voice on that one issue. (I believe it is polical/corporate corruption/welfare -- which is the single cause that is robbing every other issue from the environment to healthcare to education et al.; and is even fueling the war for contractors' profits) Until that one issue is dealt with successfully, every other personal agenda will suffer. So I believe in pulling up one's boot straps... stop complaining and set the target for the one main target -- and take it down.
Did you know: American Taxpayers are paying more $$$ to pay the interest on the debt this idiot (Bush and his Congress)has compiled and the costs to fund the military contracts due to the Iraq war than we are on all other programs together!
The special issue bonds (the media informs us that China is the largest holder of those bonds... but they neglect to inform the public that connected right-wing private individuals also own these bonds -- they purchase the bonds that secure our debt for a fraction of the face value -- but they get payments on the interest owed for not paying of the bonds on the full value of the bond at an extremely high interest percentage. This is all free money to the holders of the bonds as payments to the bond holders are considered "debt repayment" not earned income. Basically, holders of the bonds are reaping in fortune in free money on the backs of the US taxpayers. It is the single largest scam ever!
(Side note: this is why Clinton/Gore were really hated so horribly. because our economy - FOR ALL - did so well because they were fiscally responsible. Thier mantra to pay down/off the debt did wonders for the economy but threatened the finances of those such as Scaiffe, Moon, etc. who make a large percentage of their incomes off of the backs of taxpayers because of the national debt. If the debt had been paid off, they would lose their taxpayer paid "trust funds." The debt is purposeful -- it is making a few extremely wealthy individuals(who happen to control the media, etc.) while the rest of us contribute to their fortunes. Serfdom.
That's the big issue as I see it.
Sorry to have seemed so adverse to your posting.
Katherine GQ (giggling quietly)Posted by Katheine Hovey on 2005-04-22 08:57:30

KATHERINE LOL
YOU SAID: Not to seem nasty or anything, but just the opposite is the truth. Democrats are more educated than Republicans as a whole… per every study ever produced.
AND I SAY: What did I write that said I felt the opposite? I didn't even infer that to be the case. I think you assumed "I felt" those who take those roles in an education setting are "more educated." I do NOT think that at all. I actually thing the exact opposite. If I can grossly generalize being rebellious and non-conformist is a sign of a thinking, active MORE intelligent mind. Which has a hard time being told what to do and follow orders JUST because. The football players, cheerleaders do that instinctively, and follow the rules written by the student government. I hope that clariries the basis for my analogy. ;)
YOU SAID: Though, I am not stating that any of my liberal college friends were football players or cheerleaders, but instead we devoted our energies in the mentally gifted classes and arts and humanities… I remember it just the opposite: the “jocks/cheerleaders” were the ones doing “keg parties” and jock party drugs… both in HS and college. They were elected to student offices because of their popularity, not their brains. That’s what’s so frightening.
AND I SAY: That is exactly how I remember it to be too. That is why I created the education analogy. It works precisely because of what you wrote as your experience. I think where I confuse you is in definitions. I said potheads specifically because it's "illegal." The drugs I remember the jocks doing were usually legal or NOT illegal, like drinking. I didn't say they didn't abuse substances or infer they did. And again, I didn't say or infer the roles of Jock, Cheerleader OR STUDENT GOVERNMENT are associated with greater intelligence. I only said they are associated with people who LIKE ORDER, DISCIPLINE and RULES. I contrasted that with the natural progressive spirit in high school. Who I said were into the arts among other things, as you backed up with your own experiences
I think we totally agree, but you assumed I associated a superior mind with the "jocks, cheerleaders and Student Government." I actually was being very stereotypical. Those are the roles for the more average mind. Among them are leaders who decide for the entire group, contrast that with the potheads, artists Etc. who go on to be progressives. They rebel because they are too intelligent to comform without question. Unfortunately this trait doesn't serve them well later when "organization" is paramount in acheiving their goals.Posted by John Morales on 2005-04-21 21:32:21

Re John Morales input (a portion of it... below:)
"An education analogy would be the RWingers are the football players and the
cheerleaders and student government of HS and college. The progressives were the anti-establishment artists, pot-smokers, and free
thinkers."
Not to seem nasty or anything, but just the opposite is the truth. Democrats are more educated than Republicans as a whole... per every study ever produced.
Though, I am not stating that any of my liberal college friends were football players or cheerleaders, but instead we devoted our energies in the mentally gifted classes and arts and humanities... I remember it just the opposite: the "jocks/cheerleaders" were the ones doing "keg parties" and jock party drugs... both in HS and college. They were elected to student offices because of their popularity, not their brains. That's what's so frightening.
I think one thing you did bring up that is correct is the WANT of control of conservatives. It is a more narrow view (of education too -- not for the love of knowledge) only to "get you up the ladder." ...not for the love of learning new concepts and forever expanding insight. The concepts of conservative thinking are very regimented and compartmentalized as their "education" choices attest to ...as with their community/world views -- since they are so "structured," if their surroundings go astray from those surroundings, they cannot adapt -- and must force themselves upon others to "control" them back into their own comfort zone -- change/
difference/etc. is disturbing to a conservative ...control (of others)is the ultimate power to a true conservative -- the problem: anyone who maintains so much energy attempting to control others, has no [energy] remaining to control one's self... eventually, it gets testy, to say the least. ...i.e. - born agains... The rest of the truly conservatives are just greedy. I was shocked to see the number of citizens in certains counties (in my state) that voted for Bush this time that socially are liberals... they wanted that tax cut! (Wealthier West Coast counties in CA -- though, Kerry won in the counties I am writing of, I was surprised at the percentage(s) that did vote for Bush. The ridiculous thing that they -- AND EVERY OTHER BUSH SUPPORTER (that voted for him for "less government/less taxes")didn't take into consideration is that when you "add up" the state/local/property taxes/and other hidden increases that have had to be levied upon us to make up the funding that the US govt previously contribute to our schools and other social/environmental/transportation/etc. programs, that tax cut Bush gave every one adds up to a tax increase overall... unless you are lucky enough to be in that 2 percent group at the top, you are now paying an average of 27-31% more in "total taxes" (depending on where you live).
Our government: shrinking? Absolutely not. Bush has grown the government and expenses at a far greater rate than any other president, Dem or Repub... and that is excluding all monies spent on Iraq!
So, again, we agree that conservatives are not free thinkers... they educate themselves enough for their view and forget to make comparisons of all the options/outcomes that thier actions have caused... I guess that goes back to all that time they spent on the sports teams and cheerleading squads. One group, one thought, one goal, win or lose.
Obviously, I disagree with your analogy. But, you are correct: they are powerful! The football jocks vs. the classical lit major in the hallway: reasoning with them would do no good.
RegardsPosted by Katherine Hovey on 2005-04-21 20:40:02

Wow talk about missing the mark entirely as to the whys and how comes.
A reduction to the most basic element in terms of "acceptable behavior" by right wingers and progressives makes the root of why they won and we lost clear.
One defining element of conservative/right-wingers that is "natural" NOT forced, is a desire for unity and strong organization.
A defining element similar in scope for progressives is a strong rebel, anarchist and martyr streak.
An education analogy would be the RWingers are the football players and the cheerleaders and student government of HS and college.
The progressives were the anti-establishment artists, pot-smokers, and free thinkers.
The huge group of kids in HS/College that are part of neither group is rest of the nation.
The RWingers natural affinity for order, focus and organization vs. Progressives affinity for rebellion and anarchy. Pitted against each other on the political battlefield. It should surprise NO one who wins.
Today's political landscape is due more to our refusal and inability to work together, rather than any overall RW/conservative strategy. We have not recognized how similar politics are today to organized sports teams and leagues.
To play politics and be successful ONE MUST adopt and understand and play by the rules. You canNOT play if you are not on a team or part of the league.
Progressives in this analogy are the people in the stadium play. Who through their cheering and booing play a small role in who wins or loses, but almost never determine that.
IF Progressives want to play to win, we have toform our own team, train them to be as professional and as hard hitting as any other and if we want to show others how it's done go out on the field and win a game.
We have to check the strong anarchistic and rebellious streaks that run counter to this.
If we had, we'd not have the organizational problems we have today. Trying to organize various progressive groups to fight for issues outside their own perview is impossible. A couple of examplesa would be the futility of trying to get African Americans "en masse" to march in support of Gay rights. We could waste even more time trying to get Gay men to march in support of Women's rights. It JUST DON'T happen. Our individual contributions stop when it comes to supporting progressives not directly tied to us.
We have to stop being blinded by our own rightiousness. Which enshrines these traits as the reason we can see the world more clearly than those on the other side.
Progressives need to grow up and curb these tendencies. In the world of politics. These traits affect determine our modus operandi far more than our goals and beliefs.
Are they really that important in such a context? Changing one's modus operandi does NOT change one's ideals or beliefs. We can still be the way we want personally, but when it comes to the world of Politics, We have to recognize politics shares a lot with team sports. If you refuse to play on a team, you do NOT play.
Either we accept this, or we can expect to be completely irrelevant to the political processes of this nation.Posted by John Morales on 2005-04-21 07:08:31

Margaret,
One thing for sure, you can’t take the politics out of politics. The minority party is always trying to stifle the majority, Democrat or Republican it’s the same. One thing that is different is the aggressiveness and enthusiasm of the press relative to who they investigate and report on.
Nancy Pelosi was fined by the FCC for illegally funneling campaign funds to Democratic members to vote for her Leadership. A $20,000 fine for over $100,000 in violations. Harry Reid has many family members “Hooked-Up” both in his campaign efforts and with government contracts. There is a list of Congressional members that have used family members in paid positions in their campaigns, Republican & Democrat. Trent Lott is forced to resign his leadership role because of a press explosion over some comments at a birthday party and Chris Dodd makes almost identical comments about Senator Byrd. In almost all of the cases the MSM is so quiet you can hear an ant cough.
I do believe the Sojourners is a good. I happen not to be a very religious person but I agree your cause will be helped by not demonizing Christians.
I wish you all the best and hope to debate you on future topics.Posted by U Scare Me on 2005-04-20 11:51:36

USM,
Once again, you're off-track. In fact, I am finding that more and more Republicans are telling me that they now rue having voted for Bush, because what they voted for is not at all what they received. Conservatives are so far right that they don't see that they are emulating the great European fascist movements of the 20th century. It is no secret that the "neocon" goal is a one-party (Republican) systems. This is proven out in the threat of "nuclear option", changing standing House rules to protect DeLay (even Republican senators and congresspeople are yelling about that one), the re-introduction of declined nominees that we declined for a darned good reason, etc. The proof is absolutely in the pudding, and it is unfolding right in front of us, despite Repub protestations to the contrary.
I see in my party (Democrat) a wonderful change beginning to take place. The idea of God, which has been contraband for some time, is leaking back in with terrrific groups like Sojourners. They fight for all life, not just fetuses, they fight for social justice in regard to the poor, etc. The extreme left is going to have to accept Christians and more socially conservative people back into the fold if we want to knock the neocons off their pedestal. And it will happen. I actually had a multi-million dollar Republican business owner tell me yesterday that he doesn't believe the public will accept a Republican candidate come '08. The pendulum always swings back, and this will be no exception.Posted by Margaret on 2005-04-20 09:05:03

***The fact that is escaping the conversation is, in the wise words of one of the pioneers of journalism (Hearst): “the media must be liberal, because the only alternative is bias.”***
***Please remember that liberal is more synonymous with truth than conservative is. Liberal is free, allowing, open, etc. Conservative is hindering, regimented, staunch, etc.***
Talking about your closed minded, broad brush, bigoted statements. Way to go Katherine. Hypocrisy has definitely found a home in the Progressive movement, at least in your part of it.
***Not even what is considered “liberal” is, in fact, liberal any longer.***
Thank You, Katherine. This has been my point the entire time. The progressive movement has moved so far left it sees liberalism as conservatism.
Hey bvp. I believe your source for news is actually Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, not Jon Daly. It is nice to hear young people are watching some news, no matter the source.Posted by U Scare Me on 2005-04-20 05:20:42

This is why I get my news from bbc,mcneal-leara, c-span, meet the press, george stepnapolis, anybody that will show both sides of a issue,even jon daly has more truth than fox. Most young people are getting their news from jon daly, he shows how stupid and coruped are government is from both sides.Posted by bvp on 2005-04-20 02:21:03

I read the back and forth: liberal vs. conservative media... The fact that is escaping the conversation is, in the wise words of one of the pioneers of journalism (Hearst): "the media must be liberal, because the only alternative is bias." Whether you are a fan of Hearst or not, his words are wise. When I used to work in newspapers, no company was legally able to own more than 3 print, 1 broadcast, and 1 radio in any given ADI (area of dominant influence). Since the raping of this law, corporations have bought up [even] many college radio stations. In that instance, so they (who also own the major record labels)can market there own productions... however nucky and plastic their artists are. Hence, the music industry basically "tells us who is good." I personally don't know anyone over the age of 12 who agrees with who is "popular/mainstream". But, Disney owns their artists and also television stations and also radio stations and we are going to listen to what makes money for them damn it!
Same with journalistic media -- which is a corporate whore. Not even what is considered "liberal" is, in fact, liberal any longer. Except for opinion columns in newspapers, even the most "liberal" print medias are tortureously conservative. Those medias owned by very right-wing corporations (which are the majority across the nation, and in some ADIs that is all that is offered... these corporations who wish to keep their status quo do so by printing/airing/etc. what benefits them. They are not going to tell the truth about; ie - beat up on the politicians who shelter their profits for their major stock holders (which translates to themselves)...
Media, now that it has become one of the largest and most consolidated corporate giants, is not even close to being "liberal." Our media is more covert and propagandized than any other countries in the Western World. By it's own device it is "government controlled" because the free corporations are pandering to the conservative political side for their own worth.
I remember the old adage: the news is only as good as the money that buys it. Back then, you could read the same story in 15 geographical locations in the U.S. and get 15 varying sides. Since all mighty corporations own everything now, you only get one side: their side. We're being fed what they want us to believe so that we will believe the same as them so that the population will continue to [elect] leaders who will continue to whore back to the corps... vicious cycle. Basically the public is being used for the corps' profits.
Please remeber that liberal is more synonmous with truth than conservative is. Liberal is free, allowing, open, etc. Conservative is hindering, regimented, staunch, etc.
Nothing will ever change (go forward) until the truth is told. That's the biggest problem.
This argument saddens me.Posted by Katherine on 2005-04-19 23:54:12

Margaret
Liberals don’t see a liberal bias because they believe their opinions are mainstream. For every article you can recommend, I can recommend one that says exactly the opposite. I don’t need a pontificator to tell me what I read and hear are different from what I read or hear.
The Media Research Center, which is conservative, has produced dozens of scientific studies, often examining tens of thousands of stories at a time, proving the liberal bias dominating the news media. Not once has a single study ever been refuted. I see surveys all the time showing the large majority of MSM journalists are liberal and vote democratic. This is a good conservative strategy. Fill the employment rolls of the MSN with Progressive Liberals and they’ll get our story out.
The standard bearer of print media, the New York Times, has not endorsed a Republican Presidential candidate since Dwight Eisenhower. That means they’ve endorsed Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, and Gore and Kerry. Now there’s a conservative coup for you. Dan Rather & CBS news ought to be fresh on everyone’s mind. Liberals want to point to some secret conspiracy being driven by “BIG BUSINESS”. I can just watch or read the news and see an actual bias. Your hidden one is hidden so well I can’t find it.
I enjoy political debate and I’m not trying to change any opinions here, but I do believe it is a miscalculation to underestimate the intelligence of people who don’t agree with the liberal agenda. We are capable of sorting through the BS and finding reality.Posted by U Scare Me on 2005-04-19 13:57:06

Actually, I try not to rely on msm. When you read that article, you will see that exactly what you're saying is the reason people erroneously voted for someone that does not represent the morals or have the stance on the issues that they believe they are receiving. That is the entire point...msm has become so doggedly conservative that it has become a one-sided exercise in misinformation.
I would say that I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate-to-liberal. I was raised in a home where my father was a rock-solid Republican and my mom was a steadfast FDR Democrat. I have heard both sides of the issues for 50 years, so I am quite capable of knowing what beliefs fall into which camps.
I would advise you to read Kennedy's article, also go back to the Christopher Hitchens' article on the election. Then go to Chalmers Johnson's article on this site, about 10 days ago. You will either have to ignore the evidence, or become aware that the msm is, in fact, simply putting forth Administration script. Since over 80% of talk radio is right wing, I am glad that you acknowledged that it is, in fact, more opinion than news. But tell politically ignorant people a lie often enough...Posted by Margaret on 2005-04-19 11:48:27

Margaret
I looked for a link to Kennedy’s article but couldn’t find it. Next time in the book store I’ll try and remember to read it.
**USM, you need to come out of your dreamland, the media is the mouthpiece of the conservative neo-fascist theocracy, not a medium of news reporting any longer.**
I believe you believe this is a true statement but I am a conservative and I watch/read the MSM and I can tell you it is not the conservative neo-fascist thing you portray it to be. What I’m left to believe is you are soooo far left you watch MSM liberal banter and see it as conservative.
I don’t believe the MSN has changed much since I began paying attention. What has changed is a source for other news/opinions; Internet, Fox News, Talk Radio. People now have a comparison and are making choices accordingly. Trying to spread the Progressive agenda is doable, but much harder now that people have choices.Posted by U Scare Me on 2005-04-19 11:29:58

Man, 'yall still talkin' 'bout elections?
That is SO 20th century! Forget it! It is all about selections now. Post WW2 (alot of crap started in the WW1 era), we let our political hegemony take over. And post cold-war, our media died.
So, we have no real choices, (yes, flaming dems, Kerry would have done some things differently, but he's still(&anyone else you could think of) a total insider) and no media to inform us.
Enjoy the ride down!!Posted by dave on 2005-04-19 10:11:36

U-Scare Me,
Boy, do you ever! I would suggest reading Robert Kennedy, Jr's. article in this month's Vanity Fair to you, but you, like most other Republicans that come on to a progressive thread, will simply dismiss it out of hand. But for anyone else who looks, go read it. It verifies everything that I stated, which USM takes opposition to. USM, you need to come out of your dreamland, the media is the mouthpiece of the conservative neo-fascist theocracy, not a medium of news reporting any longer. Wake up and get real.Posted by Margaret on 2005-04-19 08:21:37

Another great radio resource is the Public News Service, located at http://www.publicnewsservice.org. They do fantastic work getting progressive voices on mainstream radio.Posted by Cortney Harding on 2005-04-18 13:44:58

**But if you read the foreign press as well as online sources, you find that many, many important stories are buried everyday with the “Jackson Distraction”, or the Pope, or Terri Schiavo or whatever.**
You see stories that hurt conservatives “buried” behind personal interest stories. We see stories that could benefit conservatives omitted. You a mainstream media controlled by conservatives, we see exactly the opposite. You believe people who disagree with you are stupid and easily manipulated. We believe people are smart enough to ferret through the BS and come to informed opinions on issues that affect their lives. You believe you are loosing because your message is not getting out. We believe you are loosing because both messages are getting out and people are not choosing your vision for America.
Continuing to blame everyone else for your condition, besides being comical, is why you’ll keep on loosing.Posted by U Scare Me on 2005-04-18 07:35:13

"The so-called “mainstream” media is taking it in the chops. Witness the recent plunge in the circulation of the LA Times (the mudslinging operation). The Boston Globe subsidiary of the NYT dropped and the NYT “newspaper” itself just barely inched ahead in circulation. Hell, you can also take a look at what Blather and Heyward did to the ratings over there at “CBS Forgeries”, eh?
Meanwhile the so-called “mainstream” media is being ignored." - Joe Yowsa
Joe, I've got to disagree on a couple of levels.
First, newspaper readership has been declining for YEARS, as has network news viewership.
Most people are drawing their news from cable, we can debate whether or not cable news is slanted to the right. They will call themselves centrist or conservative, we on the left call them nuts.
The point is that those outlines DEFINE the message. The left has no message. It is living on its past "reputation"...well...here's a news flash...the left's reputation has been attacked over the last 20 years and is now destroyed.
You guys can argue all you want. It's OVER. DONE. FINISHED. COMPLETED. Election validity can no longer be counted on, people's complacency can be counted on, and he who screams the loudest wins. We lose on all counts.
You want to be heard? You want to get a message out? It ain't gonna happen sitting nice and comfortable behind these keyboards cryin' because no one is paying attention to you.Posted by Liberal AND Proud on 2005-04-18 04:44:28

The return of the Fairness Doctrine is the first step to bringing back some sanity to news and opinion programs.
Second is the breaking up of media conglomerates, which stifles diversity of opinion.
One thing "our side" shouldn't do is ape the other side by having its own propaganda media. It will merely preach to the choir, when what is needed is greater access to the media which already exist.Posted by Susan Nunes on 2005-04-17 14:21:48

I think it's great that liberals...er...I mean, progressives want to even more forcefully communicate their ideas to the public. I would caution them however not to fall victim to false portrayals like the one painted by this article in figuring out how to successfully build a message and a following. The notion that conservative media is somehow a dark conspiracy created by agenda driven tycoons is fundamentally flawed and fits much more closely the profile of the left. Are the authors projecting on others methods and motivations that are actually their own?
http://tinyurl.com/89now
Progressives want to "protect and extend First Amendment rights to freedom of speech"? Apparently not the pie and salad dressing throwers at universities. Or the champions of "Campaign Finance Reform", the result of which has been to squelch and criminalize political debate, the very essence of the First Amendment. Corporate order indeed. Maybe for the media, who are always free to fill in the gaps as they choose when others are precluded by law from participating. Dude, where's my free speech? I just can't speak now, this close to the election when people are paying attention? oh......kay.
Are we sure we want to re-impose the fairness doctrine? Has Al Franken signed off on that one? In the left's effort to achieve parity with the right in talk radio dominance, I would counsel them to oppose re-instituting a law that would not only force them to accommodate opposing viewpoints, but would discourage broadcasters from sponsoring their shows in the first place for fear of lawsuits and the costs of conforming to such an intrusive, offensive mandate.
"Decades old journalistic standards of objectivity and balance" they say, apparently with a straight face. Of course everyone knows that just because almost all journalists are Democrats and almost all are irreligious, they still will be nothing but even handed when it comes to covering political and religious topics. You can just read it on their faces-- the empathy, the understanding, the tolerance.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/27/rs.01.html
(Search for the word "broaden" to get to the relevant discussion and a rare display of honesty. These are not a bunch of right-wingers talking here.)
The authors' journalistic standards are somewhat sub-standard if they believe that the guy who typed out perfect mates to the CBS Memos on his Mac using Word bears any resemblance (other than being a human) to a paid political operative. And clinging to the "tired" notion that Bush lied about WMD reveals that the authors haven't bothered themselves to read the numerous reports from numerous panels from the U.S. and Britian concluding otherwise. Catch a clue yourselves.
To teach us how the conservatives came to dominate, we learn from such "objective and balanced" folks as Joe Conason, and Eric Alterman. They are such pleasant fair-minded gentlemen. And David Brock, who may be lying now or may have been lying then. Only his hairdresser knows for sure. Such credibility. Such sources.
So what are the next steps?, they ask. Apparently, to almost exactly mimic the just paragraphs ago bemoaned methods of their opponents. Fund, strategize and organize. How original. Just like with Karl Rove, they demonize him, and then steal his ideas. They have no regard for the fact that Karl and the rest of the conservative movement have been patiently building and shaping a national movement based on solid, appealing principles for decades. They think they can "Moveon" in now by piggyback like a spoiled kid taking over his Dad's business having never shown an interest in it before. They may succeed for a while, but simply keeping the storefront and changing the product is not going to fool very many for very long.Posted by Natalie on 2005-04-17 13:44:32

Hi Jessica,
Excellent article!
You say:
“Where does this leave progressives? Stuck, with defending old-fashioned values, such as truth, fair play, factual accuracy, civility, the open exchange of ideas, the power of reasoned debate, and the honor of upholding the public trust.”
BDs post:
“BD: You write “Honorable movements succeed by creating a conflict between belief and reality that cannot be ignored.”
That:
“...but we’ve actually been doing this for the past many months in regards to the WMD debate, and it’s done bupkiss.
...No amount of reasoning on the part of the “reality-based community” penetrated their propaganda.”
In these two thoughts above, you are sort of “throwing out the baby with the bath water.” That because of the mess we find ourselves in today, the “old-fashioned values” we hold should be discarded for some unstated new ones. I heartily disagree.
BDs ideology is correct, in my view, and we must not abandon the moral high ground that you describe as those “old-fashioned values” we are stuck defending. HOW one goes about implementing that ideology is open to debate. And yes, there is much room for improvement, and that things are in fact being done.
Your straight line of reasoning; linking reality, reason and “old-fashioned values,” to a failed effort in using them, assumes there are no mitigating factors creating that failure. This in spite of a list of them in your article, you simply fault all that we stand for and suggest we throw it out.
These last 4 years have not been normal times for the American people. There were times in this country when the public was as afraid and angry as now, but never in my view, has that been coupled with massive manipulation and a propaganda campaign directed against the American public, by the people in power.
The neocons have used the spectre of fear, to keep everyone holding their breath. Orange alerts with daily updates, mushroom clouds, etc. They have tended to that fear mongering, as a gardener does to his orchids. We can’t expect people who are holding their collective breaths to “listen” to reason. Give the people security and they will begin to use reason, instead of reacting with a more primitive part of their brain.
After 9/11, the American public wanted a strong father figure to both reassure them (response to fear), and in some, to bring “justice” to the terrorists (response to anger.) Bush appealed to both of these basic emotions very well, as early poll results through the early months of the Iraq war indicate. Since then, as the fear to which the American public has been subjected has subsided, (the absence of orange alerts etc.) the poll numbers have been going down, both on Bush’s War and his job as President.
I suggest that reality is beginning to settle in on the American public as their feeling of security returns to normal. The effort to show this Administration for what it really is, is now working, as the polls now attest. Recent events are unraveling this neocon farce for what it is. The Social Security lies, Schiavo debacle, Iraq war, DeLay mess, Dominionist overreach, and now even the Bolton nomination is in trouble.
Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water. Lets not sink to the level of the neocons out of frustration and impatience, and play in their mud as has been suggested elsewhere in these comments. We need to maintain the moral high ground as we do the many things needed to form a cohesive opposition party.Posted by Merlin on 2005-04-16 20:21:05

don't worry people the neo-con are shooting themselves in the foot. The democrates will be back in power before to long, it will start in 06 when they take back the congress.
The neo-ss-cons like to rag dan rather, let's see them investigate rush limboob's drug addiction, oreilly's sex scam, north's fedral conviction from iran contra scam, chenny's indictment from enron, bush's drug and drinking days, laura bush killed a boy in her car because she was drunk and ran a stop sign, also selling pot in college, tom delay's changing of the rules so he can keep his job while being investigated in texas and congress.
The neo-cons will not address any of these issues, as long as you are republican you are invincible to the law and fox news will back you up no matter how bad you screw up.
Can you imagine if the for mentioned people were democrates, fox news and the republican's would have a field day with this.
That is what's wrong with the democrates they don't have any balls to stand up and fight dirty, like the neo-cons do.Posted by bvp on 2005-04-16 10:20:03

Hi:
I'm one of the authors of this article, and I just wanted to note that we'll be tracking these comments and making relevant revisions to the two related PDF charts, which we'll post in conjunction with the National Conference for Media Reform on March 13. So, please, give them a look and let us know what you think we've missed!
In response to a few of the readers who have already posted:
Marvin: We assert that conservatives view unfettered expression as a danger to the established corporate order because they’ve invested so much in controlling the conversation.Just as the “free market” is studded with corporate giveaways and favors, the “marketplace of ideas” is skewed by corporate control of media, paid pundits, and manufactured experts.
Despite cynical claims to be giving consumers “what they want” through marketplace mechanisms, this approach skews the national conversation by perverting the assumed terms governing freedom of expression.
JM_64: Thanks for proving our point.
jmoney: yes, nice point.
LaVida: Thanks for bringing in the environmentalists’ debate; I think that’s a really valuable parallel example. Over at Daily Kos, there’s an interesting and related debate raging about the effectiveness of single-issue organizing. Kos writes:

A new generation of activists seem to be rejecting the myopic single-issue focus of the previous generation -- a short-sightedness that has, in large part (IMHO), led to the ineffectiveness of our single-issue groups. The environmental, labor, women's, lawyer, and ethnic/racial groups have been woefully ineffective in beating back attacks from the Right Wing machine.
Divided they are falling to a superior, well-organized force. Seriously, seeing the Right Wing machine gear into action is a thing of beauty. Watching our fragmented side collapse in the face of that unified assault is a thing of despair.

Amen!
Brad Simmons: A useful distinction. However, I think we need to do both. Attacking on any and all fronts is another strategy of the right that we'd do well to emulate.
U Scare Me: Wall-to-wall coverage of manufactured controversies such as the Terry Schiavo case suggests to me that the right fringe has BECOME the mainstream according to the media giants. All we’re suggesting here is that fire be fought with fire. And that tye-dye thing is really tired, BTW. Catch a clue.
Reg: Nicely put.
BD: You write “Honorable movements succeed by creating a conflict between belief and reality that cannot be ignored.”
This sounds right, but we’ve actually been doing this for the past many months in regards to the WMD debate, for example, and it’s done bupkiss. Even the government’s own reports have shown multiple times that the public was woefully misled about the reasons for invading Iraq. Nonetheless, by leveraging well-honed techniques of fear-mongering, repetition, and, well, bald-faced lying, the administration circumvented all usual reasons for going into war and did what they felt like.
A coordinated and targeted media campaign was central to this effort. No amount of reasoning on the part of the “reality-based community” penetrated their propaganda.
Honor is great, but money, training, research and coordination are pretty crucial too. Nuanced arguments obviously are not doing the trick anymore in our media-saturated instant gratification culture.
Does that suck? Yes. Can we afford to ignore it and sit around congratulating ourselves for our superior intellects? No.Posted by Jessica Clark on 2005-04-16 06:31:31

HI Merlin,
A good place to start is the Libertarian Mantras. All the wingers recite them, even when they are flying directly in the face of even the agreed base of the thinking.
But the mantras actually promote Progressive values if you correct just one bit of raging illogic (probably deliberate). That is the Libertarian very narrow definition of what is government.
Try this "Government is what government does"
"someone Deciding about your life (what medicine your doctor can perscribe, how your electric is produced,etc)"? then they are government!
"Do they charge you for the privilage (Insurance bill,power bill, etc")THAT is TAXES! And then the key Question.
"can't hold them accountable for their decisions?" THEN THAT IS TYRRANY!!!!!
If you doubt it, try changing your power company, or your health insurance. Worse, your health insurance is often changed for you, with a whole new set of rules (LAWS!)about what you can and cannnot do. And every year the laws are more oppressive and the taxes more obscene (over 60% of my not fabulous income, last I looked) They usually hide those costs in the salary you are not paid, so people don't know what they are really paying.
Also Libertarians usually talk about Free Enterprise and Capitalism as though they were the same thing when they are actually opposing things. I thought I was the only one who saw this till I read the Halloween Documents that should be required reading in every high school as they are as important to the nature of the country as the writings of the founding fathers.
Essentially if your business is a commodity {Free Enterprise (say building computers in the '90's)}your prices (and profits) are limited by what your competition will accept. The only way to control (raise) profits is to own (control) the market {Capitalism (think Microsoft)}. No real capitalist would knowingly invest in a business market that had real free enterprise because they could not make a profit beyond what everyone else is making. This dosen't mean they might make the mistake, or buy into such a Market and "De-Commoditize" it.
In any case Capitalism is "government by other means" and DeJure Government the means by which those governments are held accountable.
I am all in favor that the government governs best that governs least, but any action that involves several (or millions) achieving a single goal involves a de'Facto government, no matter what the name is on the door.
There are many things that need no government.
1.Who I engage in sex with, or how, as long as they are willing, aware, and old enough.
2. What (or if) I think about the Metaphyisical and how I want it to affect my life. (this does not include my actions that include others who don't want to be included)
The list is much longer but again Libertarians are very selective in how far they let their logic go, it is up to progressives to show that freedom cannot be so limited. As soon as your action affects someone else in space or time you become a Government limiting their freedom, and thus must be accountable to them, or become the hated tyrant.Posted by BD on 2005-04-16 05:07:47

Hi JM...
No children, I assume? 50 years is not that long away; and: it is not like we will be living in an unfettered world until the magical "50 year mark." Progressively worse -- the facts are there. There is no time like the present. Denial is not the proper course.
Regards.Posted by Katherine Hovey on 2005-04-15 21:53:50

The so-called "mainstream" media is taking it in the chops. Witness the recent plunge in the circulation of the LA Times (the mudslinging operation). The Boston Globe subsidiary of the NYT dropped and the NYT "newspaper" itself just barely inched ahead in circulation. Hell, you can also take a look at what Blather and Heyward did to the ratings over there at "CBS Forgeries", eh?
Meanwhile the so-called "mainstream" media is being ignored. Witness the ElBaradei-NYT rag "scoop" just prior to the election. Any effect? No. (And parts of it turned out to be lies as you would expect.) Or consider the Abu Ghraib pantyscam ad infinitum and hyperbolic nonsense. Did it play out as idiots like Andrew Heyward and David Westin had hoped? I don't think so.
Then we have the fact that the so-called "mainstream" media is having some of its so-called "journalists" caught lying. And then having no choice but to sack the idiots for getting caught lying. Consider Jayson Blair, Howie "Flood the Zone" Raines, Andrew Gilligan, Greg Dyke, Gavyn Davies, Piers Morgan, Blather, the four "CBS Forgeries" minions who got sacked and Eason Jordan just for starters. (However the BBC wanker Richard Sambrook who tried to induce perjury from a journalist before the Hutton Inquiry is still lying.)
And it ain't over yet, folks. Is ..... like ..... brace yourself for this ..... maybe this is too stupid ..... well, here goes ..... actually telling the truth regardless of who wins the political races totally out of the question?
Just asking.Posted by Joe Yowsa on 2005-04-15 20:51:03

Hi BD,
You’ve explained a complicated thought very well.
In it you stated:
“Honorable movements succeed by creating a conflict between belief and reality that cannot be ignored...”
I tried to say exactly this in my post above, and was not nearly as clear and concise. Thanks for saying it this way. This really is “job 1”.
Before people will change their minds about what they believe, they must first be convinced that their current belief is wrong. At that point they will honestly look at an alternative way of seeing things. To try and convince someone of your idea, while they still believe in their own idea, loses. What you get is that person digging themselves in deeper into what they already believe. They feel attacked and threatened and react that way. Anyone who has discussed politics, and is paying attention to the other person’s body language, look, words and tone of voice, has see the “wall” of resistance going up. And nothing further is gained, but argument.
We will do better, in my view, by continuing to build alternative media of our own. Blogs, Radio, TV, Magazines, Think Tanks. In other words, the whole gamut as well as solidifying our message and cohesiveness. The Emperor must be shown to have no clothes in this 3rd party way. (Currently we progressives have no real voice in the MSM and no real voice to the people.) People feel less threatened, and more open, when they are not directly challenged but instead, in the safety of their own environment can look at a different side of things. This is what the neocons have done so well over the years, and I think this is one of the lessons we can learn from them.
Essentially, what the neocons have been saying is that “it must be true if you hear it on TV, or read it in the Newspapers” (from their mouthpieces like the WSJ and FOX News of course.)Posted by Merlin on 2005-04-15 17:52:25

The Problem that honorable people have is that reality is complex, and lies are simple. Particularly when they are repeated so ad-nauseaum that they become part of the atomosphere.
People who "think" with their instinctive reptile brains want simple answers that make them feel smug, seeing such answers as openly untrue or illogical requires a habit of thinking that would undermine their entire existance.
Conversely honorable thoughtful people can barely explain and idea with out thinking of a dozen important side issues and qualifications to the first one, making each individual seem a cacaphony much less in a crowd.
Dishonorable people, to satisfy their own smugness with bigotry, greed, or just simple meglomania, seek out those who can be most easily manipulated by making them feel smug, and run ruin on the civilization.
In the past such people were disorganized and often at cross purposes, in both political parties and no political party. Now they have organized and subverted many American Institutions (Republicans, Churches, Media, many businesses, even trying for such groups as AARP and the Sierra Club) and we are well on our way to never seeing Freedom or Democracy again
Progressives can no more follow the Republican Totalitarian example than one could create a cult based on freedom of thought, The Light Side of The Force has always appeared the weaker, and certainly the less dramatic in its tools, but it often suceeds when enough reptile brains can no longer hide from the illogic of their lives.
Honorable movements succeed by creating a conflict between belief and reality that cannot be ignored, and out the criminals, that they cannot hide their crimes, or at least keep good records if they can avoid being outed now, so that time can eventually wound all heels.Posted by BD on 2005-04-15 16:36:22

I see the paid Republican neocon is back at work again. What drivel, as usual. By the way, we have already "crossed the Rubicon" when it comes to the USA becoming a fascist state.
In regard to the media, the point is that all Americans are being cheated by not having plain facts reported rather than idiological rantings.
U-Scare-Me,
No, I can't imagine anyone would consider the LA or NY Times conservative. But if you read the foreign press as well as online sources, you find that many, many important stories are buried everyday with the "Jackson Distraction", or the Pope, or Terri Schiavo or whatever. They run stories ad nauseum so that no one ever hears the facts that would lose this Administration its backing. So, in that way, they kow-tow to the conservative powers that be.Posted by Margaret on 2005-04-15 13:58:33

Katherine,
Let's enforce even more government control and lean toward more facism...let's do what the Italians do...limit the input of power into the home...In Italy...you can only have 3000 watts of power....if you exceed that amount the circuit breakers pop...try running your dryer and your oven at the same time...you can't..the circuit breakers pop...'tis would be a good way of reducing energy cost...might take you a week to do 3 loads of laundry...but think of the energy savings....Posted by JM_64 on 2005-04-15 13:19:51

Katherine,
Given all the scientifc data that points to “within 50 years” our world will be pretty much destroyed as we know it unless corrective measures are taken immediately, I would suggest public outrage at the waste of energy/thus pollution of our environment for this nonsensical form of media.
So...how about we install digital switches in each home and depending on the owner or renters work schedule..we cut the electricity off for their 8 hour work day?...that would save a lot of energy...those that chose to sit at home and not work just have to learn to live without electricity for 8 hours a day...a good start??Posted by JM_64 on 2005-04-15 13:04:46

Thank you Katherine Hovey. What an insightful and informative post. You should consider becoming a college professor, if you aren't already.Posted by U Scare Me on 2005-04-15 12:06:05

24 hour news media is doing more than destroying our democracy (and frankly for all the pundits that talk/talk/talk, a third grader has just as enlightened a viewpoint as they... they are not relaying news, only opinion). BUT: THE LARGER POISON OF THE 24 HOUR NEWS CYCLE has not yet been addressed: Frankly, we don't need it -- it is redundant, and the energy usage to run (and view) such nonsense is as big a waste as old power plants.
Given all the scientifc data that points to "within 50 years" our world will be pretty much destroyed as we know it unless corrective measures are taken immediately, I would suggest public outrage at the waste of energy/thus pollution of our environment for this nonsensical form of media.
Regards...Posted by Katherine Hovey on 2005-04-15 11:05:55

Those polls are useless.
The President is NOT RUNNING again. So his approval ratings...IRRELEVANT.
Will the public tie the President and the Congress together? Is there linkage between the President and the Congress' performance? Is there linkage between the President's performance and Tom Delay...etc etc etc.
THOSE are the only numbers that matter. If the answer is no, then kiss your theory, the next election and the country goodbye.
Look to the midterms. This is the most corrupt Congress in recent history. It is not only corrupt, it is so arrogant it operates its corruption in full view.
If there is no major turnover, my suggestion is to start contemplating emigration to somewhere else.Posted by Liberal AND Proud on 2005-04-15 09:09:22

It's not about conservative news or progressive news, it's about NEWS. The public is not getting news at all. It's being fed selective bits of information that the WH deems fit for consumption. The mainstream media is simply the informercial for WH propaganda at any time of the day. The rest of the news is filler sensationalism and trivia.
The problem with progressives is they have no mantra of their own that is meaninful. All they do is counter the mantra of the right. Time for a change. But, before there is change, there has to be acknowledgement of the problem - not denial.
The Right moves in lockstep for good reason. Think about why. Then consider why tens of millions of American lemmings follow them blindly. Then make the appropriate changes.
For a good analysis of the herd mentality:
CLICK HEREPosted by Reg on 2005-04-15 07:46:50

Granted, Fox News is slanted towards the conservative side and conservative radio has a large and loyal following, but if you believe ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times & LA Times are conservative then please send me some of what you are smoking.
I’m trying to understand what a Progressive is. (in this case the meaning of the word “is” is really “is”) To believe the mainstream media are conservative is to believe the Democrat agenda is conservative.
Progressives must be so far left the left doesn’t even recognize you. It appears you may have more in common with the far right fringe than you do with most of America. If the left fringe & right fringe got together it would be an entertaining gathering of like minded individuals in tie-dye or camouflage and people hiding their faces in white pointed hoods or black bandanas. I think Progressive makes more sense remaining a popular canned soup than a political movement.Posted by U Scare Me on 2005-04-15 07:37:13

JM_64
We did not lose vietnam because of our media.That's simply knee-jerk right-wing rhetoric,and probably surprises the hell out of the North Vietnamese.Also,who are you comparing Dan rather to?Bill O'Reilly,Rush Limbaugh,Sean Hannity,or any of the other Fox News party news READERS,not reporters?Honestly,until Fox news came along,the only place you could find so many party mouthpieces was in a Soviet marching band.Dan Rather has been trashed because he has a habit of criticizing the Republican Party when they lie,cheat,and steal.In other words their daily work.Let's see that kind of "integrity applied to critcizing Bill O'Reilly and his recent sexual harassment lawsuit which was swept under the rug by our liberal media. Remember,disagreement is not treason,though the far-right keeps forgetting that,just like they forget their"dissent"they expressed toward anything Clinton did.
Furthermore,there is a reason why NPR has to be funded.The entire mass media system is controlled by big businesses,and unscrupulous ones at that.They want no criticism of their actions or those who help them stay in power.As a result,we are left with toothless radio network that doesn't express its view with any of the force it should.As far as the right is concerned,they want no opposing voice.That,of course,is totalitarianism and apparently the right-wing's goal.
By the way,has anyone on this site noticed how right-wingers will never tell you what they do for a living?Is it because their in non-intellectualy taxing jobs?One could divine that from their Facile political philosophy?Maybe they're party shills like those"concerned citizens who disrupted the recount in 2000,and later turned out to be congressional pages?Posted by wwoods on 2005-04-15 06:53:43

Get on the telephone and raise some hell.
The conservative drones have been doing it for years. They make a lot of noise, disproportionally so and it is effective. In the absence of any significant counterbalancing input, that disproportionality is not recognized as such, thus further compounding the magnitude of their message.
We need to speak up in defence our beliefs to provide that counterbalance.
Too often I have made the effort to express my concerns regarding slanted and/or omitted news stories just to be informed that I was the only one to present any objection and that the majority of comments were contrary to my position. I have little reason to doubt the veracity of the response.
Rather than involvement, too many that would identify with the left have surrendered to complacency, if not to out right disengagement.
That has to change and it begins with each individual doing what they can.
The old maxim still applies:
'Qui tacet consentire'---Silence gives consent.
Maintain Hope and stand up for your beliefs.Posted by J H bushwah on 2005-04-15 03:07:28

Excellent article! It summarizes the situation well; past, present and future. I would, however, disagree with the implication and tone of the following:
“Where does this leave progressives? Stuck, as they are, with defending old-fashioned values, such as truth, fair play, factual accuracy, civility, the open exchange of ideas, the power of reasoned debate, and the honor of upholding the public trust.”
We progressives are not “stuck” with defending these things! They are the real issues of living. They are our strength not our weakness!! These are not things to debate about nor talk about. They are what we should live and they should be the underpinning of what we do politically. Crowing about being the good guys while they are the bad guys plays their game, in their frame of dualistic thinking.
I did not see in the article that we should expand the great work that the progressive bloggers are doing in exposing the neocon cabal for what they are doing. I believe that in addition to having a unified face with positive programs and agenda, we need to effectively show the public that they are being scammed through the right wing controlled media. This work is beginning and I believe that the polls point to a successful start. I agree with Brad simmons when he says:
“I don’t we should concern ourselves so much with getting into the mainstream media, but rather making our media mainstream - by giving progressive media great financial support.”
Lastly, I believe that when you want to succeed at something you copy the successful people in the field you are entering. In this case let us study the neocon “playbook;” take the best of their successful ideas and use then in our own way. After all, the neocons started from nothing way back in the 1960s. Remember the Goldwater disaster? These same guys, (Wolfowitz, Powell, Armitage, Cheney, Rice (later), Kristal-Irving and son Bill, Norquist, the money folks behind them like Coors, Scaiffe etc.) and a host of others have been working on their agenda since those “dark” (for them) liberal days of the 60s and 70s. Their “success” deserves our utmost attention and education. I am confident we will succeed!Posted by Merlin on 2005-04-15 00:06:31

In response to bluenote, I suggest that in addition to ongoing vigilance as the only way to maintain liberty (which is, of course, perfectly correct), we must also prepare ourselves emotionally for future traumas that might mislead us into thinking that it's wise to allow our rights to be further abridged, ala 9/11 and the almost instantaneous passing of the USA Patriot Act. Such events may very well, I fear, occur again, and we must steel ourselves in advance so that we do not allow our horror to provoke an unreasoning grasp for some mythical level of security.
A suggestion also about getting messages out there that show the other side of the neocon's policies. Americans often identify with testimonials from people who have had a tough time of it, who tell their stories well and who represent courage in the face of bitter circumstance. Maybe one of you budding young video producers can conduct interviews with some of the victims of the administration's policies; disillusioned former soldiers and their family members, those who formerly held decent paying jobs but who now struggle to make ends meet, etc etc. Loading the files onto the internet and disseminating them around the world wouldn't be a technical challenge at all for plenty of savvy individuals.
My guess is, there are more potential interviewees out there than you could possibly meet in years of devoted work.
The faces and words of these people could be extremely compelling, and if a groundswell of interest gets going, sooner or later the stories will get out into the mass arena whether Murdoch's media machine adopts them or not.Posted by Kuya on 2005-04-14 23:40:33

Do you approve or disapprove of the job the Republican leaders in Congress are doing?"
approve 39%
disapprove 44%
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling Social Security?" N=1,040, MoE ± 3
approve 35%
disapprove 57%
"Do you think George W. Bush is doing a good job or a poor job in handling each of the following issues as president? How about improving the nation's energy policy?"
good job 32%
poor job 54%
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
approve 43% .
disapprove 54%
Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Jan. 10-12, 2005. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.
"Compared to four years ago, do you think relations between the United States and other countries are better, worse or about the same?"
better 10% .
worst 50%
same 39%
How did this idiot get back in office.Posted by bvp on 2005-04-14 21:13:44

I totally agree with Brad. Let the conservative's utterly corrupt propaganda machine die on the vine. More and more Americans are waking up to the truth. They are already turning to progressive media on the net. I believe we should fund the media we trust and let it develop as a beacon of truth; let it grow and mature naturally, responding to the needs of the people.
Let the corporations and their "pundits", who have betrayed America and her people, fall flat on their faces.
I also do not believe we should change ourselves. I am unalterably opposed to the concept of "republican lite". The people who organized right-wing media control are sick people. Their form of "controlling" everyone, their arrogance, lies, manipulation and breathtaking arrogance is what will defeat them.
The earth is crumbling beneath their feet even as I write. They have lost Iraq. If they have not realized it yet and make the tragic, devastating mistake of attacking Iran... the countries of the world who are propping up our economy (and who clearly recognize themselves as "targets") are going to drop the American economy like a stone.
The neocons see this coming; they deliberately bankrupted the country, but they are not responding to the information before them.
A clear majority of the country has expressed their disapproval and dissatisfaction with the current administration and Congress. Yet, they pass the "Credit Card Company Protection Act", they openly betray our troops, they attack Social Security.......the people smell a rat even if they are ignorant of specific facts.
Futhermore, we do not have sufficient troops to control Afghanistan and Iraq. Even with stop-loss and thousands of hired mercenaries from South America and Mexico, our military is broken. When the neocons attack Iran, with its' bristling military (The Iranians know the attack has been planned and are preparing for it), they will retaliate. They cannot reach the continental U.S., therefore, they will focus on targets of opportunity; they are going to block the Strait of Hormuz (through which some 40% of oil bound for the U.S. passes)our troops in the Gulf and Israel.
We don't have enough troops to put boots on the ground in Iran. Our troops in the Gulf will be diminished by Iranian attacks at the same time the dollar and economy collapse. How do you think the neocons will respond? There is only one option available; they will go nuclear in the Middle East because they are, in my opinion, insane. They cannot admit they are wrong. They cannot and will not abandon their "Project for the new American Century" of their own accord.
The neocons, and essentially our "government", will fall with the economy; which will very probably ignite civil war in the United States.
I suggest we stock up on canned goods. Cultivate a vegetable garden and/or find farmers close to us who can provide us with food. We had probably better consider our personal protection and purchase some sort of fire arm.
If we survive all this, and I believe we will, and the people of the world can recognize how all these wars are initiated by bloodthirsty corporations run by subhumans blinded by arrogance and greed, we may have the opportunity to reclaim the earth from the devastation wreaked upon it by the neocons and all those who are like them.
When that time comes, let us all remember, the maintenance of Liberty requires constant vigilance. We must never, ever forget again.Posted by bluenote on 2005-04-14 20:53:45

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush: Job Ratings
► STATE POLLS -- including election trial heats and job ratings -- can be found in the subscriber area of our web site.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polls listed chronologically. All data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older.
The Harris Poll. April 5-10, 2005. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.
"How would you rate the overall job President George W. Bush is doing as president: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"
.
Excellent/46%
Pretty Good
Only Fair/56%
Poor
Not Sure/0%
Refused
bush's numbers keep going down. People are finally waking up.Posted by bvp on 2005-04-14 20:49:28

Last week, Bush put some distance between himself and DeLay after the majority leader suggested judges should be penalized for their decisions in the Terri Schiavo case. Bush said he believed in an independent judiciary.
It's not the first time the White House has gone out of its way to define a presidential relationship.
Last year, the White House sought to minimize Bush's ties with indicted former Enron chief Kenneth Lay, saying it had been a long time since they talked and suggesting it had been only a passing friendship.
When Bush was governor of Texas, Enron was a big financial backer, and Bush referred to Lay as "Kenny Boy."
DeLay has been criticized by Democrats and even some of his GOP colleagues, who say his continuing ethics controversy is harming the GOP.
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., has urged DeLay to resign from his leadership position. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, has said DeLay needs to answer questions about his ethics.
this will help the democrates in 2006 and 2008.Posted by bvp on 2005-04-14 20:34:30

I disagree with this
"funnel ideas from the grassroots, progressive think tanks and the independent media into the mainstream media where national conversations take place."
I don't we should concern oursleves so much with getting into the mainstream media, but rather making our media mainstream - by giving progressive media great financial support.
All the other parts of the puzzle need support too, but I think this is crucila piece that is missing.
Forget the corporate media, lets make our own.
I think the list above is a good one. Haven't heard of the first organization, but looks promisingPosted by Brad simmons on 2005-04-14 18:36:55

Great piece.
I think both foundation and grassroots support for key progressive media organizations is needed.
My List of priority organizations to support:
http://www.coanews.org
http://alternet.org
http://democracynow.org
http://truthout.org
http://iwt.tv
and of course http://inthesetimes.orgPosted by Sean on 2005-04-14 18:27:00

Remember: A core theme linking bigot to bigot is .......the erroneous assumption that private profit justifies all.
But that is wrong. You know that, I know that, maybe GW Bush and Bush, Inc. know that ....but even tiny children know that. So how can the Bush machine not know that?
And how can voters in America not know that?
You know now that GW Bush's powerful propaganda machine is more powerful than the "unending wars" that he has planned for US ....but doesn't want to tell US about.
Well, we're going to find out.....as are all the other Americans who are paying for them.....who won't in the future.Posted by Holly Berkowitz on 2005-04-14 18:19:40

The GOP = A Culture of Lies.Posted by Lefty on 2005-04-14 15:09:05

Thoughts on smart and stupid funding...
I don't know where I read this exactly, but I remember hearing that environmental organizations get billions of dollars, as much as the Democratic Party gets on an off-year election. Don't know if that's entirely correct, but I do know they have TONS'o'money and as far as I can tell they're pissing a lot of it away.
Ken Ward has a cool piece up- also in Grist- discussing the importance of financing infrastructure. He notes that while "Environmental foundations boast total assets and annual grants that dwarf conservative funders" they are "unwilling, or unable, to undertake a similar approach (to right-wing funders) toward building power." In fact, their

stands in stark contrast to the right wing, which invested early and heavily in its systems for identifying, tracking, testing, training, inspiring, and placing thousands of emerging leaders. Right-wing funders place a premium on "cultivating the next generation of conservative leaders by supporting their undergraduate work, linking them with conservative networks and internships, placing them with think tanks, and guiding them toward high-level government positions," says People for the American Way.

He does see some glimmers of hope,

There have been some shifts within the foundation world toward a broader view of power, with more enthusiasm for funding scrappy initiatives, and a hint of rethinking the wisdom of depending too heavily on wholly owned subsidiaries.

Here's to more dough for scrappy initiatives. God knows we need them! Although this article focuses on environmentalism I think it translates well for progressives in general.Posted by LaVida on 2005-04-14 14:15:10

I'm happy to see ITT taking this on. We desperately need to rethink, restructure, reinvision, and reorganize ourselves. Obviously something isn't working. But I believe if we come together in new ways with fresh, all-together-now, over-reaching ideas we could start kicking some ass.
Grist has some interesting discussions going on about the article The Death of Environmentalism, which caused quite a stir in the environmental community. The issues in the piece mirror a number of the points raised in the above article. The crux of the authors' argument is that the environmental movement has strikingly little to show in their efforts to fight global warming which is not due to lack of effort or money (hundreds of millions have been spent), but rather, to outdated organizing frames and institutions:

We believe that the environmental movement's foundational concepts, its method for framing legislative proposals, and its very institutions are outmoded.

By failing to question their most basic assumptions about the problem and the solution, environmental leaders are like generals fighting the last war -- in particular the war they fought and won for basic environmental protections more than 30 years ago.

Among other things, the authors advocate for environmentalists throwing in their lot with other social and civil causes (they've done a pretty miserable job thus far). And, rather than coming up with technical, policy driven solutions to environmental ills, we need to instead, create a big vision centered on core values in which people can rally behind. It's a good read and tickles the brain (I'm not doing it justice here). Oh and it came out BEFORE the Nov 2nd election, and BEFORE everyone was talking about "values" and "big vision."
In regards to Jessica and Tracy's suggestion that we "look for inspiration from innovative models of participatory information-sharing" I think blogs are a good step in this direction and I love keeping up on the latest ways technology is being used to positively change our world. Speaking of which, if you don't know about Worldchanging.com, you should. They are simply amazing. Check it out:

WorldChanging.com works from a simple premise: that the tools, models and ideas for building a better future lie all around us. That plenty of people are working on tools for change, but the fields in which they work remain unconnected. That the motive, means and opportunity for profound positive change are already present. That another world is not just possible, it's here. We only need to put the pieces together.

I love how they infuse technology, with innovative ideas, with positive idealism. They're doing a cutting edge job of bringing out the ideas we'll need to reshape progressivism and change the world.Posted by LaVida on 2005-04-14 13:52:29

One more component: the journalism and communications program funneling journalists into broadcast media. In the one I attended, the majority of professors had little or no experience as journalists. They came from PR and marketing, but taught reporting classes. Further, the journalism school also taught the PR classes. Students learned to blur the line between ads and news. There were no ethics courses, only a one-time after-class "discussion" or ethics in journalism. The idiot students who got the broadcast internships are the same idiots who now have the broadcast jobs. They were encouraged by the school to do whatever it took, because these were the "big" jobs. Until the schools start teaching what it really means to be a journalist, separates journalism from entertainment and especially from PR work, the majority of J-school graduates are going to be a joke.
I know people who went to J-school are only one part of the group working in journalism, but they're a BIG part of those working in broadcast. Unappealing as it sounds, working journalists need to be willing to come and teach in academia, and academia in turn needs to pursue these "working" teachers. The problem isn't just big picture. It's all the little cogs.Posted by jmoney on 2005-04-14 13:26:49

Marvin,
Many of us complain about taxes. Yet we seem to be unaware of the “tax” we pay to support the right’s media machine. We pay that tax everytime we purchase a product or service that finances their views.

I don't understand this statement...can you please enlighten me?Posted by JM_64 on 2005-04-14 13:11:28

The question is....why is conservative media driven by consumers and liberal media driven by private donations? Air America does not have enough sponsers for one market...lest XM radio. If it wasn't for private money ( and government money i.e. NPR), liberal radio would have no voice.Posted by JM_64 on 2005-04-14 13:09:09

Phshaw...
What rock have these writers been living under? Dan Rather as a respected journalist? Is there any truth that the American media caused us to lose the Vietnam War? If Dan Rathers agenda was to actually come to fold, everyone at CBS,NBC,ABC, and CNN would be sent to the gulag. I can't belive you guys actually believe this crap!Posted by JM_64 on 2005-04-14 12:58:23

I have read the first two sentences five times and it seems to be incorrect. "View unfettered expression as a danger", etc. (right's View)?
As Mario says, The right has a larger microphone. Others say republicans have a bigger stage. Its true, the right's media machine is Niagara Falls and the progressive's is a "crick" in Indiana.
Many of us complain about taxes. Yet we seem to be unaware of the "tax" we pay to support the right's media machine. We pay that tax everytime we purchase a product or service that finances their views.
We need a worldwide boycott!Posted by Marvin Wagner on 2005-04-14 12:02:29

You can see the emerging progressive message making here, at The America! Coalition. Check us out, and donate if you're supportive.Posted by TAC on 2005-04-14 10:25:55

The war has been fought over the last twenty plus years and progressives lost. They refused to see the danger, and wrongly assumed that the checks and balances of the Constitution could not be undermined and that the "progressive" nature of the American public would not allow a roll back in freedom or the "progressive" view on sex, rights, gender and class which evolved out of the Sixties.
Progressives allowed the dynamic of the conversation to be changed from one of progress to a discussion of "basic" mores, as defined by a strongly ideological and very small minority of this country's population.
The Constitution may not have been shredded, but it is torn, and its a very small step from a slight tear to a ticker tape parade.
I always considered myself an optimist. But the fact of the matter is that so called liberals and progressives have lost their way to such an extent that they are no longer capable of accepting much less defining a single set of values that they can agree on and use as a rallying point.
The "regressives" as I call them may be backward, but they KNOW what direction they want to march in and they're all marching in unison.Posted by Liberal AND Proud on 2005-04-14 09:37:25